QuoteReplyTopic: In a Silly Sequel, All Hail Breaks Loose! Posted: October 10 2007 at 4:14am

CALL US PHILISTINES, BUT WE WEREN'T ACTUALLY ALL THAT IMPRESSED by CATE BLANCHETT's OSCAR® -NOMINATED FIRST TURN as THAT REDHEAD from LONDON. IN THIS SEQUEL, HER BOMBAST KNOWS NO EQUAL. CRITICS HAVE JOKED THAT THIS SECOND ELIZABETHAN DRAMA IS MORE LIKE 'HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL' THAN a HISTORIC DRAMA, and MOST of 'EM GAVE BOTH the FILM and ITS STAR a ROYAL RIPPING. ...

You would have to be insane not to think that Blanchett deserved the Oscar for Elizabeth.

Response from Head RAZZberry: Chalk me up as being insane, then -- I guess I'm bucking a trend here on the Forum, but I by far preferred SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE to the original ELIZABETH (which, to me, was bombastic, overlong and melodramatic -- As opposed to SHAKESPEARE, which actually assumed its audience not only brought their brains into the theatre with them, but were also familiar enough with the works of William Shakespeare to get the dozens of subtle references to them throughout the film)...

But did you really prefer Paltrow to Blanchett in the actress category? Lots of people preferred SIL to Elizabeth, and even to Saving Private Ryan.

Response from Head RAZZberry: I personally thought Joseph Fiennes(as Shakespeare) was the best thing in the movie -- and he wasn't even nominated by the Academy! 1998 was a particularly weak year for Best Actress (LINK to IMDb page for that year's Oscar nominees) so I wasn't too upset when Paltrow won. It's also interesting to note that Geoffrey Rush, who wasn't then very well known (nor yet an Oscar winner himself) co-stars in SHAKESPEARE and both ELIZABETH movies...

I actually liked "Elizabeth". there's some historical inaccuracy like many historical films, but it looks like the screenwriter (Michael Hirst) actually did his homework in capturing the essence of 16th century England. I thought Blanchett was good, so was Geoffrey Rush. The cinematography was excellent, as were the costumes and make-up (its sole win out of 7 Oscar categories).

It's also worth noting that Dame Judi Dench also played Elizabeth I that same year, in "Shakespeare in Love". I thought she was the best part of THAT movie. That was the only year I said WTF to the Academy: I thought the Best Picture honor should've gone to "Saving Private Ryan"...

Also of note, Michael Hirst went on to write the hit Showtime series "The Tudors", which starts its second season next year.

I haven't seen Elizabeth, but I have seen Shakespeare in Love, mostly because a friend of mine hated the film, and I wanted to see why. I wound up loving the film. However, I do feel Saving Private Ryan should have won the Oscar for best picture, and that being one of my friend's favorite pictures, may explain why she hated SIL so much.

That's the same reason I hate SIL. Also, I despise Gwyeneth Paltrow (don't know if I spelled that right?).

Originally posted by cvcjr13

I haven't seen Elizabeth, but I have seen Shakespeare in Love, mostly because a friend of mine hated the film, and I wanted to see why. I wound up loving the film. However, I do feel Saving Private Ryan should have won the Oscar for best picture, and that being one of my friend's favorite pictures, may explain why she hated SIL so much.

The thinking from this corner is that the people who made this film got confused: Since a movie about a different British despot named Elizabeth took home some Academy gold last year, maybe they figured that the movie going public actually gives a rat's a$$ about British queens.

Personally, I'd rather endure the punishment of sitting through a film about the most useless human being on the planet: Prince Phillip.

Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum